New Paragraph

How to F*** Up a Company in 7 Easy Steps: A Manual for Dummies
August 13, 2020

By Chris D. Lewis

I continually read and write articles about the criticality of effective leadership in building morale and a positive organizational culture in terms of the professionalism, buy-in and contribution of employees. In my book “Never Stop on a Hill”, I outlined all the important aspects of true leadership; how people can make or break your company and highlighted the need to inspire them to be and do their very best.


But I regularly speak with employees of private and public sector organizations that tell me that what they are seeing, hearing and feeling out there is the antithesis of effective leadership. This is understandably dragging them down; taking away their desire and that of their colleagues to work hard and try their best to help the organization prosper. This has to be negatively impacting the success of these companies and agencies at least in pockets and potentially as a whole.


Given the apparent will of so many pseudo-leaders to blow it and therefore fail their organization and its clients, I decided I would do my part to provide them some much-needed advice on ‘how to’ completely bomb. Why only go half way? Here’s how to totally F*** things up:

1. Treat everyone like crap. Remember what supervisors did and said over your career that made you want to suck your thumb and cry or quit. Do all of those things and more those that report directly to you, and also to colleague “leaders” around you. That will help drag them down as well, so they can further add to the fun of making the lives of ALL employees a living hell.


2. Do not reward good employees or challenge the bad. Let everyone do what they want, or do nothing if they choose. Show the hard-working and committed employees that their efforts mean zero, and show them that the lazy employees that abuse the system; disobey the rules; and do nothing go totally unchecked but still collect the same pay check every two weeks. In fact you should try to promote some of the very worst people to send a resounding message to the good!


3. Do not communicate. Screw them. The employees don’t need to know what is going on and why, so don’t tell them. Nor do you need to know their thoughts; ideas or suggestions on how to provide better service or be more efficient. If you need their advice, that means you don’t already know everything yourself. After all, you’re a boss and they aren’t, so what the hell do those peons know about anything? How silly.


4. Destroy morale. Happy employees will only come to work on time, work hard, won’t call in sick as often; will smile and treat people – including customers, with professionalism and respect. They might even actually start to feel good about themselves and not want to quit! Jesus. Who needs that nonsense?


5. Do everything you can to make employees feel disconnected. Don’t acknowledge their efforts; NEVER thank them; and don’t do or say anything to make them feel understood, valued or appreciated. What good could possibly come out of that? You certainly do not want them to feel that their opinion counts, or they might then try to offer suggestions or God-forbid attempt to slide in unwanted input to steer your boss-like decisions. (See number 2 above.)


6. Never support anyone, ever. If they start thinking that you care about them and want to help them succeed in their careers or in their personal lives, that could lead to morale “building” rather than your ultimate goal of “destroying” morale. If you acknowledge the positive happenings in their lives (like the birth of children, marriage, new homes, birthdays, vacations, retirement) or offer them support in the dark days (i.e. physical or mental illness, family deaths, financial hardships or divorce) they will think you must be weak. Remember: These people are merely numbers on a company payroll. They are not people that have needs or challenges in life and if they suddenly do, you don’t need to know and it’s not your job to help anyway. What are you supposed to do? 


7. Know nothing about an employee. Do your best to never even know their first names. In fact don’t know anything about them! If anything more than “hey you” is required, just call them by their last names, or “buddy” or “kid”, as opposed to “Bill” or “Sue”. They’ll love that. Your goal should be that when they quit or go off totally broken mentally and or physically, retire or die, you should be able to proudly say “I never even knew his or her first name”. You also don’t need to know if they are married; have children; have parents; where they are from; where they live; what their personal interests are; what their experience levels or areas of expertise might be; and where they want to go in the organization. In fact, the more you know about them, the more you’ll be tempted to actually seem human at times. Despite articles to the contrary, that is not a good thing.

If you are successful, you will contribute greatly to the total failure of the organization. Morale will continue to plummet; sick leave will rise; productivity will deteriorate, professionalism will be non-existent and you’ll lose clients in droves. People will quit or transfer and you’ll be unable to attract replacement personnel because the word will spread like wildfire that you are a dick.


And if you happen to be a so-called leader in a police department, where I had the pleasure of serving for decades, a lack of professionalism will lead to a lack of community trust. The public will not want to report crimes or tell your officers things they’ve heard or suspect. Victims won’t feel comfortable telling the people you “lead” about awful things they have had happened to them. Your members will inevitably do bad things and community leaders will do everything in their power to either promote you so you can screw things up at an even higher level, or kick your useless ass out of the door before you make things even worse. Either way, you’ll have succeeded in sucking the life out of your people and destroying the will of the organization. Well-done!


Mission accomplished.

Police investigating police: Is there another option?

By Chris Lewis • March 18, 2026
The March 17 th announcement by the Toronto Police Service (TPS) regarding the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) investigation into allegations by an Ontario Justice that three TPS officers colluded and lied during a 2024 murder trial against a man that ran over and killed TPS Constable Jeffrey Northrup in 2021, has further inflamed the debate over who should investigate alleged police wrongdoing. This instance combined with the recent arrests and ongoing police investigation into several TPS officers for their alleged involvement with organized crime, has brought this discussion to a boiling point. I appreciate the public perceptions around this investigative model given that the average citizen doesn’t necessarily understand the professionalism and commitment of police investigative teams like the recent OPP Criminal Investigation Branch (CIB) group. I have all the confidence the world in that team, but I also personally know the ability and integrity of the OPP Detective Inspector in-charge. So, if these investigations aren’t carried out by police, who will do them? They do not fall under the mandate of the Ontario Special Investigations Unit (SIU), which by the way is largely comprised of former police criminal investigators and forensic identification experts, many of whom investigated homicides in police services. For SIU to assume a larger role, they would have to grow exponentially and expand their team of ‘former cops’. These cases generally do not fall under the purview of Ontario’s Inspectorate of Policing either. They would loosely fall under the oversight role of Ontario’s Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA), who is responsible for receiving, managing and overseeing public complaints against police, but frankly they don’t have mandate or the horsepower to conduct complex criminal investigations. They oversee the “public complaints” that may lead to a criminal investigation, but the investigation would be the responsibility of a police service to conduct. An expansion of the LECA would require a tremendous amount of funding and human resources, most of whom would also be former police officers. Hiring and training civilians to conduct such investigations is an option, but largely an incomprehensible one. Police criminal investigators are trained officers that generally start out as uniformed officers responding to occurrences and investigating more routine and less serious crimes, i.e. minor assaults and property crimes. They build investigative expertise over time, including in interviewing and interrogation; gathering and securing physical evidence; legal processes like obtaining judicial authorizations; presenting evidence in court; and various investigative strategies. They learn how to work with special police units that provide specific investigative skills, and more. All of this doesn’t happen overnight, but over a period of years and with the tutelage of more experienced investigators along that journey. Trying to turn a group of young and well-educated civilians – no matter how intelligent and well-intended, into a team of elite investigators, would be a complete disaster and unfair to the public or to the officers being investigated. Over my many years as a member or as the Director of the OPP CIB, my colleagues and I investigated criminal allegations against cops from other agencies. Before the SIU was formed, we investigated officers from many Ontario police services – large and small, who had used deadly force. Many were cleared and a number were arrested and charged. We also investigated criminal allegations against police chiefs in Ontario. Again, several were appropriately cleared, and some were brought before the courts. Municipal, provincial and federal elected officials were similarly investigated and some charged. Our members also investigated police officers in other provinces, including high-ranking ones. I personally investigated two Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officers that were involved in an arrest that result in the death of a suspect. They were properly exonerated, but I would have charged them in a heartbeat if they had wrongfully killed than man. I arrested an OPP Sergeant for sexual assault. A CIB colleague investigated and arrested two different OPP officers for criminal offences. Both of those officers had been personal friends of mine and years later committed suicide. There are tons of similar examples that I can refer to over my career. All of these involved the oversight and legal analysis of a Crown Attorney, sometimes from another province. The interesting thing, and what most of the anti-police folks will never believe, is that in every single one of those investigations, the dialogue that I was involved in with other officers that I worked with or supervised, involved doing what was right. In other words, “If the allegation is substantiated, we will put the case together, arrest them and put them before the courts.” Not even once, did we think about or do anything that would give an officer a pass when they committed a criminal offence. Never. I have every confidence in the world that the vast majority of municipal and RCMP colleagues across Canada would operate under the same guiding principle. Has the occasional officer worked in conflict with that approach? Undoubtedly. Were some investigators not as committed or capable as they should be and perhaps did a poor investigation accidentally or deliberately? Quite likely so. But I truly believe those cases are the exception, not the rule in criminal investigations. Where I more often believe poor investigations or deliberate attempts to inappropriately give a colleague a break continues to occur, is in Police Act investigations, where policy or employee harassment wrongdoings are suspected. I like to think that the focus on that continues to improve, but not fast enough in some cases. Sadly, I know now that unbeknownst to me at the time, it happened under my watch. A focus for my next article. The public and police deserve the very best of investigators to ensure that bad cops are effectively put out of business and good officers are cleared. If there’s another effective option that would appease the doubting public – aside from using current officers from other agencies or creating a new and costly entity that would be staffed by former police officers, I’d like to hear it.

Should the Police Chief be blamed for the misdeeds of subordinates?

By Chris Lewis • February 13, 2026
I say "No."

When Oversight Becomes Overreach: Why a Few Bad Officers Must Not Redefine Policing

By Chris Lewis • February 11, 2026
Policing depends on public trust. So does police oversight. When either loses credibility, both suffer and the public they are sworn to serve isn’t sure who to believe or where to turn. In recent years, calls for stronger police oversight have grown louder, often driven by a small number of high-profile misconduct cases. Confidence in institutions by the public – often fueled by ridiculous social media theories and damnations, is more fragile than in the past, and reputational damage spreads faster. Despite the fact that Canadian police officers operate under tight legislative and regulatory frameworks that exceed any other Canadian profession in my view, existing oversight bodies feel pressure to take action quickly when bad things happen, as isolated as they may be. But there is a risk in this moment that deserves equal attention: the risk of overreach. The seven officers who have been alleged to have committed crimes – including serious ones that involve organized crime, must not be allowed to redefine an entire profession. Public trust certainly adds urgency to this moment. When corruption cases like this surface, the public does not necessarily see them as isolated failures. They see a system that is broken and in my view in this instance they see that unfairly. Policing is unlike most professions. There are over 70,000 police officers in Canada, comprised of federal, provincial and municipal officers that work under the worst of circumstances at times and face the harshest of critics. As a result of the arrests of seven serving Toronto Police Service (TPS) officers as well as a retired officer, then the subsequent suspension of two additional TPS officers and two Peel Regional Police Service officers, a large portion of the Canadian public are focusing on the ‘bad’ and forgetting the wonderful and brave police work occurring in their communities 24/7. Officers exercise coercive authority on the public on behalf of the public, often in volatile environments. They have right to take away people’s liberty and in the worst of situations to take lives. That authority most definitely demands the greatest of accountability, but it also demands reasonable, sensible and balanced oversight. Oversight systems designed around ‘worst-case scenarios’ risk governing by exception rather than thoughtful considerations and reality. One of the most overlooked consequences of overly broad oversight is its impact on ethical officers. When serious misconduct is identified, entire services face scrutiny and as a result of the Inspector General of Policing’s announcement to inspect all 45 police services in Ontario, the impacts are far reaching and not isolated to the police service of the members in question. The risk is that the resulting collective stigma will not only damage public trust but will also hurt officer morale; officer initiative may decline; recruiting could be impacted; and the reputation of the entire profession across Ontario will be damaged because of the alleged actions of a few. Oversight that blurs critical lines risks judging officers by association rather than their individual conduct. Officer trust in the oversight system and public trust in the policing profession could both be further harmed. As a result, both the Toronto Police Association and the Police Association of Ontario have rightfully expressed their concern regarding the inspection of all of Ontario’s police services. Their distress is that the announcement may be read by many that police corruption is rife across the province. At this point we do not know how much of this alleged criminal activity occurred off duty, versus on. We don’t know all the details of what they may have done and how, let alone what processes, policies or systems within the TPS that may have to be examined by the Inspector General. He may well have identified them all, but perhaps not. As the investigation portion by police continues, more things for inspection may be identified. In the meantime, I have no doubt that Ontario’s police Chiefs are reviewing their processes based on what they know so far, to ensure their policies, systems and internal oversight mechanisms are as tight as they can reasonably be. The seven charged officers are suspended and before the courts. The justice system is entrusted with dealing with these allegations from here. Others not charged but under investigation are suspended as well. There was no rush to begin a review process as this unfolds. Announcing that it will occur when the criminal investigation is complete and when they are armed with a more fulsome understanding of the issues that should be examined, would have been more appropriate. None of this lessens the need for accountability. It argues for thoughtful processes, analysis and reporting. Misconduct should be addressed decisively and dealt with through due process as it is, but broad oversight driven by isolated wrongdoings risks weakening the institutions we all depend on. Public trust matters. Undoubtedly. But so does institutional trust in police officers. In my view, processes that signal broad-based suspicion undermine the trust they are meant to protect. Oversight works best when it is firm, fair, and controlled.